Page 23 of 44 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 23

  1. #221
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,622
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Here's the problem with CICO. The proponents use it as a prescription, but then define it as a description.

    If you're using the term "CICO" to describe the first law of Thermodynamics, there's no problem.

    If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades. It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently. And people don't live in metabolic wards.

    The alternative hypothesis/neuroendocrine theory of obesity/black box theory is an explanation that in no way contradicts the former. If your defense of CICO is to re-state the First Law of Thermodynamics, you're defending the former, which needs no defense, not the latter, which is indefensible in light of what we know today about human physiology.
    There is no problem with CICO. People screw up tracking their calories. That isn't CICO's fault, it's their fault.

    Pencils never spelled words wrong. Guns never killed people. Cake never made anyone fat. People do these things.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  2. #222
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    I see some goalposts being moved :-) "Losing weight" is a different thing from "burning fat" or "reducing body fat %".
    Again, you keep defending Newtonian physics which nobody is challenging. You can control what and how much you eat, but you can't control exactly how many calories you absorb, or how much energy you expend (you can always exercise more, but BMR is outside your control).

    And you will find it a lot easier to control your food intake if you eat things that encourage proper satiety signaling. And damnably hard if you don't.

    Telling someone with downregulated BMR who's eating 900 calories a day to eat less and move around more is a crime amongst people intelligent enough to know better. That includes you and Choco.

  3. #223
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Here's the problem with CICO. The proponents use it as a prescription, but then define it as a description.

    If you're using the term "CICO" to describe the first law of Thermodynamics, there's no problem.

    If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades. It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently. And people don't live in metabolic wards.

    The alternative hypothesis/neuroendocrine theory of obesity/black box theory is an explanation that in no way contradicts the former. If your defense of CICO is to re-state the First Law of Thermodynamics, you're defending the former, which needs no defense, not the latter, which is indefensible in light of what we know today about human physiology.
    Amen, Rich. Keep fighting the good fight

  4. #224
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Here's the problem with CICO. ... It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently.
    You keep saying this -- it's not true.

    CICO says that weight gain or loss (adjusting for water, 30 lbs moustaches, and such) is the result of the imbalance between the intake and the output of energy. If you consume more energy than you spend (cause) you will gain weight (effect). If you spend more energy than you consume (cause) you will lose weight (effect).

    CICO says nothing, nothing at all about which factors affect the amounts of energy your consume and spend.

    CICO is not confused about the direction of causality because it makes no claims about what causes the energy imbalance.

  5. #225
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,622
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Amen, Rich. Keep fighting the good fight
    Please show me one study - EVER - where people were shown to be in a caloric deficit and did not lose weight, or a study where people were shown to be in a caloric surplus and lost weight. Since it has been shown to be a failure for decades, surely many exist.

    That statement is a lie.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  6. #226
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    I live in the world in which my mind is capable of controlling how much calories do I consume.
    Wait a minute. You told me your evidence of proof was that if one person incarcerated another person and held them against their will, starving them for a fixed period of time, that would be "proof" that it "works" in the real world. Which describes a laboratory experiment, not the real world.

    The fact that your n=1 has failed to help hundreds of millions of Americans gain control over their weight problems is hardly any sort of "proof" that it works for any more than a handful.

    It's pure fat-shaming. You love it because it makes you feel superior to all those people out there who couldn't make it work, when in all likelihood you're a person who has never had a real weight problem. Your only problem is that you like to feel superior to other people and seek out rationalizations for telling yourself how everybody but you is a failure.

  7. #227
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    You can control what and how much you eat, but you can't control exactly how many calories you absorb, or how much energy you expend (you can always exercise more, but BMR is outside your control).
    I can control the upper limit on the calories I consume easily enough. I can dynamically adjust that upper limit based on actual weight changes. I don't need to precisely know my energy balance, I just need to make sure its sign is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    And you will find it a lot easier to control your food intake if you eat things that encourage proper satiety signaling. And damnably hard if you don't.
    Heh. Hey, where did those goalposts go? We're now talking about "easier" :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Telling someone with downregulated BMR who's eating 900 calories a day to eat less and move around more is a crime amongst people intelligent enough to know better.
    Oh, cool :-) Looks like I got called an intelligent criminal :-D

    But come on, compared to AdamK's claims about how CICO kills millions of people and tortures millions more, your example is kinda underwhelming. You need to put more fire into it, more zing! Let's bring in widows and orphans! Won't someone please think of the children! ENEMIES OF THE STATE!!eleven!

  8. #228
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,674
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Here's the problem with CICO. The proponents use it as a prescription, but then define it as a description.

    If you're using the term "CICO" to describe the first law of Thermodynamics, there's no problem.

    If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades. It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently. And people don't live in metabolic wards.

    The alternative hypothesis/neuroendocrine theory of obesity/black box theory is an explanation that in no way contradicts the former. If your defense of CICO is to re-state the First Law of Thermodynamics, you're defending the former, which needs no defense, not the latter, which is indefensible in light of what we know today about human physiology.
    Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Please show me one study - EVER - where people were shown to be in a caloric deficit and did not lose weight, or a study where people were shown to be in a caloric surplus and lost weight. Since it has been shown to be a failure for decades, surely many exist.
    Straw man argument obviously.

  9. #229
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    Wait a minute. You told me your evidence of proof was that if one person incarcerated another person and held them against their will, starving them for a fixed period of time, that would be "proof" that it "works" in the real world. Which describes a laboratory experiment, not the real world.
    No, that's not what I said. I said that starving someone IS GUARANTEED to bring their weight down. In reality. The usual, physics-based reality.

    I haven't said anything about what might be the most useful approach to reduce obesity in the populations of the developed countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    It's pure fat-shaming.
    How come? I'm essentially applying basic physics. I am saying nothing about moral qualities, about willpower, about what's socially acceptable and what not, about what weight someone *should* be, or anything similar to that. Sure there are people who'll say that so-and-so is a fat slob because of the deadly sins of gluttony and sloth, but that's not me and CICO has nothing to do with it either.

  10. #230
    0Angel0's Avatar
    0Angel0 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    How come? I'm essentially applying basic physics. I am saying nothing about moral qualities, about willpower, about what's socially acceptable and what not, about what weight someone *should* be, or anything similar to that. Sure there are people who'll say that so-and-so is a fat slob because of the deadly sins of gluttony and sloth, but that's not me and CICO has nothing to do with it either.
    And trying to apply "basic physics" to the human body whose complex biochemical processes are controlled by enzymes and hormones is why you are wrong.

Page 23 of 44 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •